Compare And Contrast Locke And Hobbes Social Contract

Social Contract In order to govern a society, the established government needs a certain amount of control and power over the citizens. Mitchell defines this social contract as, “social contract an agreement among citizens or between the ruler and the ruled that defines the rights and duties of each party.” Locke views humans as benign in nature, who would passively live out their lives without interfering with their neighbors. Hobbes believes that humans are innately aggressive and must be controlled and regulated by a powerful central entity to ensure everyone coexists and lives peacefully. They both agree that social contracts are necessary, but vary their reasoning’s on why. We agree to become party of a society, and contribute to ensure the success of that society. In return, we would receive some necessities and protection by that society. The ruler of the society, most of the time a Government, can easily become an unstoppable entity that can continuously empower itself with new rules and regulations to manipulate how the society functions. This ruler also needs enough strength to withstand and persevere through trials and tribulations it faces, but determining the right amount of power is complicated. Hobbes and Locke had seen different sides of human beings, but it is hard to say which one is …show more content…
I believe basic rights starts with sustenance, water, and housing. The basic necessities, nothing too lavish or extraordinary, but enough to weather tough times that people tend to encounter. We should take care of our own, because our power comes from this basic united mentality. Outside of basic necessities I believe that people should have the right to live life in any way they want, with only 1 restriction, to not interfere with anyone else’s right. This is where it becomes complicated and ideas begin to clash, but it happens every